{"id":168280,"date":"2010-06-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-20T02:34:15","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T21:04:15","slug":"chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/416\/2007\t 18\/ 20\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 416 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE \n\n \n\n\t\t\tand \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To be
\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
CHOHLA
\nAMRABHAI TEJABHAI – Appellant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
THE
\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & 1 – Opponent(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nYATIN  SONI for Appellant(s) : 1 – 7.\n<\/p>\n
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI APP for
\nOpponent(s) :\n<\/p>\n
1,
\n=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI<\/p>\n
Date
\n:   28\/06\/2010  <\/p>\n
CAV JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
\tAn
\nincident occurred on 21.4.2005 at about 13-15 hours in Subhashnagar
\nchowk area of Bhavnagar where it is alleged that one Vipul @ Munno
\nChandubhai Sarvaiya was attacked by, in all, 13 persons. Out of these
\n13 persons, three were juvenile and, therefore, were referred to the
\nJuvenile Justice Board. They were (i) Pancha Bharwad, (ii) Lala Kava
\nand (iii) Rohit Nanji. They were alleged to be armed with stick,
\nknife and stick respectively. The following persons came to be tried
\nby the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case Nos.152 of 2005 and
\n215 of 2005. They are –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t\tAmrabhai
\nTejabhai<\/p>\n
(ii)\t\tChithar
\nTejabhai<\/p>\n
(iii)\tBhopa
\nTejabhai<\/p>\n
(iv)\t\tTino
\n @ Karsan Tejabhai<\/p>\n
(v)\t\tNatha
\nTejabhai<\/p>\n
(vi)\t\tBhima
\nTejabhai<\/p>\n
(vii)\tRaju
\nDevabhai<\/p>\n
(viii)\tNaran
\nBharwad<\/p>\n
(ix)\t\tDeva
\nPanchabhai<\/p>\n
(x)\t\tRana
\nPanchabhai<\/p>\n
1.1\tThey
\nwere all charged with offence punishable under Sections 302, 144,
\n147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. They
\npleaded  not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
\nConsidering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court
\nfound that the prosecution failed to prove  case against original
\naccused Nos.8, 9 and 10, namely, Naran Bharwad, Deva Panchabhai and
\nRana Panchabhai respectively. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted
\nthem of the charges. On the other hand, the trial Court found that
\nthe prosecution succeeded in proving the case against rest of the
\naccused i.e. accused Nos. 1 to 7 and convicted them of offence
\npunishable under Sections 302, 144, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section
\n135 of the Bombay Police Act. They were sentenced to imprisonment for
\nlife with a fine of Rs.500\/- each, in default, to undergo SI for 15
\ndays for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 144, 147, 148 and
\n149 of IPC, whereas for the offence punishable under Section 135 of
\nthe Bombay Police Act they were sentenced to imprisonment for one
\nmonth with a fine of Rs.250\/-, in default, SI for 5 days. The
\nsentences were ordered to run concurrently. This decision was
\nrendered by judgment and order dated 22.11.2006 and hence this
\nappeal. The convicts, original accused Nos. 1 to 7, have preferred
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
1.2\tIt
\nwould be appropriate to note that appellant No.6, Bhima Teja, had
\nabsconded pending the appeal. However, he has now been restored to
\nthe prison, whereas accused No.7, Raju Deva, is still absconding.
\nRest of the persons are in jail.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAs
\nper the prosecution case, the incident was witnessed by Harshaben
\n(Exh.77) who is mother’s sister of the deceased  and witnesses
\nLaljibhai (Exh.86) and Pareshbhai (Exh.87). FIR was lodged by
\nHarshaben and, according to her, while she was going to see her
\nsister along with the deceased, the appellants along with the
\nacquitted accused and the juvenile offenders attacked the deceased.
\nThey were all armed with deadly weapons like sword, knife, gupti,
\nkoyto, sickle and sticks. They collectively attacked the deceased and
\nthe deceased succumbed to the injuries. He was taken to the hospital
\nby the complainant and others, where he was declared dead. On the
\nbasis of the FIR lodged by Harshaben (PW-27), offence was registered
\nand investigated by ‘B’ Division Police Station, Bhavnagar. After
\ninvestigation, the investigating agency having found sufficient
\nmaterial connecting the accused persons filed a charge-sheet in the
\nCourt of CJM, Bhavnagar who, in turn, committed the case to the Court
\nof Sessions and additional charge-sheet was filed, as some of the
\naccused were absconding, and that is how two Sessions cases, namely,
\nSessions Case No.152 of 2005 and 215 of 2005 came to be registered.
\nCharge was framed against the accused persons at Exh.18 to which they
\npleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the end of the trial,
\nthe trial Court gave the verdict, as stated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr Soni for the appellants and learned APP Mr Maulik
\nNanavati for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr Soni submitted that whole of the prosecution case  is a
\npiece of concoction. According to Mr Soni, though, as per the
\nprosecution case, there were three witnesses, two of the independent
\neye-witnesses have not supported  the prosecution and the story
\ncanvassed by the third eye-witness, first informant, Harshaben is not
\nbelievable. Her version about the incident gets no corroboration from
\nany other piece of evidence. On the contrary, her version becomes
\ndoubtful in light of the medical evidence.  Mr Soni submitted that
\nthe first informant herself has sworn an affidavit to show that the
\ninvestigating agency did not record her FIR as stated by her. Not
\nonly that, she adds that names of certain persons were included in
\nthe FIR as the assailants,  though she had not given their names. Mr
\nSoni submitted that the investigation, therefore, is not independent
\nand unbiased. Keeping this aspect in mind, if evidence of Harshaben
\nis seen, Mr Soni submitted, that there are several contradictions,
\nwhich in the ordinary course may not be so significant, but in the
\nfacts of this case, would assume significance. The contradictions
\nindividually may not be significant but collectively they would
\nrender the prosecution case unbelievable or at least would bring the
\ncase under shadow of reasonable doubt. Mr Soni submitted that as per
\nthe say of Harshaben she and the deceased started off from home
\nimmediately after taking meals and within few minutes thereafter the
\nincident occurred. Necessarily, therefore, there should be presence
\nof food in the stomach of the deceased. However, the stomach was
\nfound to be empty, which would mean that the food was taken at least
\n2 to 3 hours prior to death as admitted by the doctor. Harshaben is,
\ntherefore, not telling the whole truth. Similarly, about the timing
\nof Harshaben going to her sister’s place, there are contradictions.
\nThis would be important, according to Mr Soni, because her presence
\nitself is doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tMr
\nSoni submitted that FIR is given belatedly after deliberations. When
\nthe deceased was taken to the hospital and the Doctor inquired about
\nthe names of the assailants, he failed to get the names. Similar was
\nthe situation so far as police officer is concerned. If first
\ninformant was an eye-witness to the incident, she would have
\ncertainly revealed the names of the assailants at that very point of
\ntime. Mr Soni, therefore, submitted that the whole prosecution case
\nis nothing but concoctions and, therefore, the trial Court erred in
\nholding that the prosecution proved the case against the seven
\nappellants beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tMr
\nSoni submitted that the appeal may, therefore, be accepted and the
\nappellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nappeal is opposed to by learned APP Mr Nanavati. According to the
\nlearned APP, the evidence of Harshaben needs serious consideration.
\nIt is true that two other eye-witnesses have not supported the
\nprosecution case but that, by itself, would not render evidence of
\nHarshaben doubtful. The contradictions or discrepancies which are
\npointed out by the learned advocate for the appellants are minor and
\ninsignificant and do not affect the prosecution case. The appeal may,
\ntherefore, be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWe
\nhave examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival
\nsubmissions.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tIt
\nmay be mentioned, at this stage, that accused No.7 is absconding.
\nHowever, since other convicts are in jail, it is expedient to hear
\nand decide the appeal  without waiting for accused No.7 to be brought
\nbefore the Court, particularly when he is represented by an advocate
\nand, therefore, his interest would be protected. Abscondence is an
\nindependent offence by itself and for that action shall be initiated
\nseparately. This need not deter us from hearing and deciding this
\nappeal in above stated fact situation regarding other convicts.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tInterestingly,
\nthe prosecution has examined, in all, 38 witnesses, out of which,
\nonly 12 witnesses have supported the prosecution case and rest of the
\nwitnesses have been declared hostile to the prosecution. Out of the
\n12 witnesses supporting the prosecution case, four are police
\nofficers, two are doctors, two are government servants and four are
\nprivate witnesses. Out of the four private witnesses, who support the
\nprosecution case, only one witness i.e.  first informant, Harshaben
\nis an eye-witness. The evidence of rest of the three witnesses does
\nnot throw any light on the prosecution case or does not strengthen
\nthe case in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tDifferently
\nput, out of the 12 supporting witnesses, only one witness, has
\npersonal knowledge about the incident. Against this, the prosecution
\nhad projected two other witnesses as eye-witnesses to the incident,
\nnamely, Laljibhai (Exh.86) and Pareshbhai (Exh.87) who have not
\nsupported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nabove analysis would go to show that the entire prosecution case
\ndepends on evidence of first informant Harshaben (Exh.77). In such a
\nsituation, it would be prudent to give a close scrutiny to such
\nevidence before accepting the same as truthful and reliable. It will
\nhave to be tested with other available corrective and contemporaneous
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tHarshaben
\nis examined as PW-27 at Exh.77. According to her, she had gone to
\nSubhashnagar chowk at her parental house and after having lunch she
\nand Munno, the deceased, started off together. Munno is her sister’s
\nson. They had started off together for going to the house of
\nSarojben. When they reached near Subhashnagar chowk, Raju Deva and
\nPachabhai along with other persons came there and dragged Munna and
\nthereafter assaulted him. There were about 8 to 10 other persons
\nbelonging to Bharwad community and none of them paid any heed to the
\nrequest made by them. A sword blow was given on the neck of the
\ndeceased. Amra Teja, Raju Deva and Pancha Sajan were armed with
\nsword.  Rest of the brothers of Amra Teja also indiscriminately
\nassaulted the deceased. The deceased fell to the ground. The witness
\nsays that she went for calling her sister and mother and then went to
\nthe place of incident in an auto-rickshaw. The deceased repeatedly
\nrequested to leave him but Pancha Sajan and others persisted the
\nassault.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe
\nwitness has been cross-examined at length where she states that they
\nhad started off after having lunch at about 12-15 to 12-30 p.m.. It
\nalso emerges from her cross-examination that clothes of the first
\ninformant, Harshaben, and other persons who took the deceased to the
\nhospital in an auto-rickshaw were not stained with blood, although it
\nemerges that the deceased had bled profusely. It also emerges that
\nher mother and sister had taken Vipul @ Munno (the deceased) in their
\nlap. From the cross-examination of this witness, it also emerges that
\nthe FIR was lodged at about 1-30 p.m. and her signature was obtained
\naround that time. She admits that names of the assailants were
\nwritten by the police in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tBefore
\ngoing further, it would be appropriate to refer to Exh.80, which is a
\ncommunication written by first informant, Harshaben, to PI, ‘B’
\nDivision Police Station, Bhavnagar where she states that her FIR is
\nnot recorded as dictated by her and that she has not involved, (i)
\nRanabhai Panchabhai Bharwad (ii) Devabhai Panchabhai Bharwad, (iii)
\nLalabhai Kavabhai Bharwad, (iv) Rohitbhai Najabhai Bharwad and (v)
\nNaranbhai Chhothabhai Bharwad. She states that these five persons are
\nnot involved in the incident at all. The communication indicates that
\nthese five persons had not participated in the incident at all and
\nhave not committed any offence. She has stated that the names of
\nthese persons have been incorporated in the FIR by somebody with a
\nview to weaken the prosecution case. The application is supported by
\nan affidavit sworn by the first informant. The affidavit is on same
\nlines, which is sworn on 3.6.2005. The FIR is on record at Exh.78
\nwherein these five persons are attributed with weapons and a specific
\ncharge of assault by them is made.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tKeeping
\nthe above evidence in mind, if the case of the prosecution is
\nappreciated, it has to be recorded that barring the first informant,
\nHarshaben, two other eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution
\ncase. Majority of the other independent witnesses have chosen not to
\nsupport the prosecution case. Such witnesses are mainly the Panch
\nwitnesses. The discovery, recovery etc., therefore, cannot be said to
\nhave been properly proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe
\nevidence of solitary eye-witness, Harshaben, cannot be outrightly
\nrejected, but would certainly call for a closer scrutiny. In the
\nbackdrop of the nature of evidence, decision of lives of so many
\npersons cannot be taken without giving a close scrutiny to the
\nevidence of solitary eye-witness. At the same time, evidence of
\neye-witness in such cases, cannot be rejected only because other
\nwitnesses have not supported the prosecution case. To assess whether
\nthe evidence of solitary eye-witness, Harshaben, inspires confidence
\nor not, we will have to examine other pieces of evidence led by the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\nevidence in the form of a letter addressed by the first informant to
\nPI, ‘B’ Division Police Station on 2.6.2005, which is on record at
\nExh.80 and supported by an affidavit, would indicate that the FIR  is
\nnot recorded by the police agency as given by the first informant and
\nhas falsely implicated at least five persons. The matter does not end
\nby incorporating names of such persons, but such persons are
\nattributed specific weapons and specific role in the FIR. This would
\nmean that the investigation is not carried out independently and
\nwithout bias. This is the case of the first informant herself. If
\nfive persons are falsely included in the FIR by the police agency, it
\nwould be unsafe to proceed on a premise that the rest of the evidence
\nis honestly collected and is genuine. Possibility of a total
\nconcoction cannot be ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tWith
\nthe above major defect in the prosecution case, the evidence of
\neye-witness, Harshaben, has to be assessed.  This, we say, because
\ncertain discrepancies which may be considered as insignificant
\nordinarily, would be of relevance and significance in the instant
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tAccording
\nto the first informant, Harshaben, she went to her parental house as
\nshe wanted to visit her another sister. She has stated that she left
\nher home at about 11-30 a.m.  to 12 noon and that it takes about half
\nan hour to reach her parental home from her home. Against this,
\nwitness, Mitesh, who is her sister’s son (Exh.90) states that
\nHarshaben came to his house at about 9.00 to 9.30 a.m. in the
\nmorning.\n<\/p>\n
17.1\t\tSimilarly,
\naccording to Harshaben, she had her meals along with the deceased at
\nabout 12-15 to 12-30 hours and thereafter they left and the incident
\noccurred at about 1-15 p.m., meaning thereby, the time lag between
\nmeals and the incident was about 45 minutes. Against this, the
\nDoctor’s evidence is that the stomach of the deceased and the
\nintestines were empty. The Doctor has also stated that empty stomach
\nwould mean that the deceased must have taken meals at least 2 to 3
\nhours prior to his death. The medical evidence, therefore, not only
\ndoes not corroborate the version of the eye-witness but to an extent
\nfalsifies the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
17.2\t\tSimilarly,
\nabout the timing of the FIR, the version of the first informant,
\nHarshaben, is inconsistent. At one stage, it is stated that she put
\nher signature at about 1-30 to 2-00 p.m. in the hospital, whereas the
\nPSI in his evidence has stated that he reached the hospital at about
\n2-40 p.m. and thereafter made inquiries about the details of the
\nassailants. The officer, who recorded the FIR, Mahendrasinh Parmar
\n(Exh.113) states that he recorded the FIR after the Inquest Panchnama
\nwas drawn. The Inquest Panchnama is at Exh.31, which is drawn between
\n15-00 to 15-50 hours. Obviously, therefore, the FIR was after 15-50
\nhours. The evidence of the first informant about giving the FIR is
\nalso inconsistent. It also emerges  from the evidence of the officer
\nwho recorded the FIR, namely, Mahendrasinh Parmar (Exh.113) that he
\nmade inquiries about the names of the assailants upon going to the
\nhospital but nobody disclosed the same. The first informant also
\nadmits that she did not give the names of the assailants with weapons
\nbut they were written by the police. She in terms states that the
\nnames of the assailants were written by the police.\n<\/p>\n
17.3\t\tSimilarly,
\nthe Doctor before starting the post-mortem had made inquiries from
\npolice for about  5 to 10 minutes about the details of the assailants
\nbut the same were not disclosed to him by the police.             The
\npost-mortem notes indicate that the post-mortem was carried out
\nbetween 5-30 p.m. and 8-20 p.m. on 21.4.2005. This would indicate
\nthat till that point of time names of the assailants were not known.
\nIf this be so, the FIR which purports to have been recorded prior to
\nthe time of post-mortem either may  not have been recorded at that
\npoint of time or the names of the assailants are subsequently
\nincorporated by fabricating a new FIR. The first informant is
\ninconsistent about the time of signing of the FIR. This would go to
\nthe root of the prosecution case. This would also lend credence to
\nthe allegation of the first informant in the communication that the
\nFIR is not recorded as given by her and that at least five persons
\nhave been falsely added.\n<\/p>\n
17.4\t\tThe
\nfirst informant does not disclose names of the assailants either
\nbefore the doctor or before the police on being inquired initially.
\nShe has even admitted that she did not know names of the assailants
\nat the time of the incident, but in the  next breath she realises the
\neffect of it and corrects herself by saying that she had the
\nknowledge of the names of accused assailants.\n<\/p>\n
17.5\t\tIt
\nis also worth to note that there are no marks of blood on the clothes
\nof the first informant, although she states that she took the victim
\nto the hospital. Considering the nature of injury and profuse
\nbleeding, as emerging from the evidence, it is difficult to believe
\nthat her clothes would not be stained even though she took the victim
\nto the hospital in an auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe
\nabove defects in the evidence of the first informant render her
\ndeposition not reliable. The investigation also does not inspire
\nconfidence. Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out
\nadopting the safest standards of reasonable time. In our opinion, the
\ntrial Court erred in relying on the prosecution evidence and
\nconvicting the appellants. On same set of evidence it is accepted
\nthat accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 may not have been party to the incident
\nand on the same set of evidence involvement of others is accepted.
\nThe entire prosecution case hangs on scant evidence of first
\ninformant, Harshaben, which suffers from various defects as discussed
\nhereinabove and, therefore, the conviction cannot be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe
\nappeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The judgment
\nand order dated 22.11.2006 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer,
\nFast Track Court No.3, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case Nos.152 of 2005 and
\n215 of 2005 is  set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the
\ncharges levelled against them. They shall be set at liberty
\nforthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine paid, if any,
\nshall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(A.L.\n<\/p>\n
DAVE, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.)<\/p>\n
zgs\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/416\/2007 18\/ 20 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 416 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3293,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010"},"wordCount":3293,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010","name":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T21:04:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chohla-vs-2-it-on-28-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chohla vs 2 It on 28 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}